by Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The 2025 report issued by the U.S. Department of State under the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 is a strategic document that reflects a consistent application of U.S. foreign policy instruments to influence the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Framed in the language of democratic values and human rights, the document functions less as an objective evaluation of Hong Kong’s governance and more as a strategic statement aligned with broader geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
The report criticises the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy while simultaneously acknowledging the continued operation of separate institutions, including a customs territory, an independent monetary system, distinct financial regulations, and an autonomous legal framework. These elements are central to the "One Country, Two Systems" model, which remains in effect. The inconsistency between the report’s claims and its acknowledgements raises questions about the coherence of its arguments.
The legal foundation of the report—the Hong Kong Policy Act—is itself a product of Cold War-era strategic thinking. Its underlying assumption that the United States holds the authority to "certify" the internal condition of a Chinese city lacks grounding in international law. It reflects an outdated conception of extraterritorial oversight. This approach echoes past U.S. interventions in regions such as the Middle East, where similar assertions of moral and legal authority have been subject to contestation.
A notable contradiction emerges in the application of the Policy Act. While the Act prescribes differentiated treatment of Hong Kong in economic matters, the Trump administration’s 2020 revocation of Hong Kong’s special trade status contradicts this provision. The imposition of tariffs identical to those applied to mainland China undermines the legal consistency of U.S. policy and highlights its strategic fluidity.
The report’s critique of Hong Kong’s national security legislation is similarly problematic. The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), enacted in March 2024 under Article 23 of the Basic Law, addresses threats, including terrorism, subversion, and foreign interference. These are concerns recognized by all sovereign states. Comparisons with U.S. legislation, such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), suggest a double standard in the evaluation of national security measures.
Allegations that prosecutions under the National Security Law (NSL) and the SNSO are "politically motivated" overlook the legal context of such actions. For instance, the 35-Plus case involved coordinated efforts to obstruct legislative processes, activities that could be prosecutable under U.S. sedition or conspiracy laws. To characterize these actions as pure expressions of dissent misrepresents their legal implications.
Claims regarding the erosion of judicial independence also lack substantiation. The resignation of foreign judges, often under media scrutiny, does not constitute evidence of systemic failure. Hong Kong’s judiciary continues to issue reasoned judgments, uphold procedural fairness, and follow established legal standards. Commentaries by former judges, including those such as Justice Jonathan Sumption, should be viewed as political opinions rather than definitive legal assessments.
Concerns about restrictions on freedom of speech and press are presented without sufficient contextual analysis. Legal actions against incitement and the dissemination of seditious material are consistent with statutory responses in other legal systems, including those of the United States. The continued presence of media outlets critical of the government suggests a more nuanced media environment than the report portrays, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive analysis.
The accusation that Hong Kong engages in "transnational repression" misrepresents standard legal practices. Issuing arrest warrants for individuals accused of serious legal violations, even when they reside abroad, is a recognized aspect of international law enforcement. The U.S. government regularly engages in similar practices, including extradition requests for politically sensitive cases.
Assertions of reduced academic and religious freedom are similarly unpersuasive. The introduction of patriotic education aligns with civic education models in democratic states, including the United States. The legal case involving Cardinal Zen pertains to financial governance, not religious beliefs, and should not be framed as a case of religious persecution.
Criticism of content regulation and internet oversight lacks comparative context. Legal requests to remove content inciting unrest are typically subject to judicial scrutiny. In contrast, private technology companies in the United States often remove user content without transparent legal processes, raising similar yet distinct concerns about speech regulation.
Finally, the report’s depiction of declining U.S.–Hong Kong cooperation overlooks the United States’ role in undermining bilateral legal frameworks. The 2020 suspension of the extradition treaty and the sanctions imposed on Hong Kong-based firms reflect unilateral decisions driven by political objectives rather than mutual legal obligations.
In conclusion, the 2025 Policy Act report should be viewed primarily as a geopolitical instrument rather than a neutral assessment of governance. Its core function is to advance strategic narratives that challenge China’s sovereignty and political model, thereby exposing the report's political implications and selective applications of the principles it purports to uphold.
Virginia Lee
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
When a country cycles through leaders at breakneck speed, the problem runs deeper than personnel. Some systems are simply incapable of producing good leaders. Britain is the textbook case.
Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced his resignation, making him the seventh prime minister Britain will have churned through in a single decade. Starmer served less than two years in office. The previous six were dominated by five Conservatives: David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.
Then, in 2024, Labour won power with just 34% of the vote. Thanks to Britain's first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all electoral system, it secured a parliamentary majority and governed alone. Two years on, swapping the party in power has done nothing to revive Britain's fortunes.
The political force enjoying the highest approval ratings today is the far-right Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage. Before 1992, Farage was a Conservative member. His Euroscepticism — his opposition to Britain joining the EU — drove him out. This anti-immigration, far-right figurehead has since become Britain's most popular politician.
Cast your mind back ten years to today — the eve of the Brexit referendum. A red campaign bus plastered with pro-Brexit slogans became "a beautiful sight to behold". Its message read: "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave."
Standing in front of that bus, freshly departed as Mayor of London, was a buoyant Boris Johnson, training his sights on his old Eton and Oxford classmate, Prime Minister David Cameron. Both were Conservatives, but at university Johnson commanded the room while Cameron kept a low profile. Johnson clearly could not stomach watching his old classmate rise to the top job. So when Cameron recklessly called a referendum on EU membership, Johnson seized the moment, positioning himself as a sniper waving the Brexit flag.
Dominic Cummings, the enigmatic architect of the Leave campaign, later admitted that it was precisely that red bus slogan that drove them to victory. With the benefit of hindsight, every Brexit promise Johnson made — chasing away migrants, saving on EU membership fees, improving British healthcare — now reads as pure farce. Johnson also served as Prime Minister from 2019 to 2022, holding real power. None of those promises were kept.
Start with the claim about NHS funding. The £350 million-a-week figure was itself inflated — the net contribution was closer to £250 million. But that deception is only the tip of the iceberg. The NHS waiting list stood at roughly 3.7 million patients in 2016. By April this year, it had ballooned to 7.22 million. The median waiting time for treatment climbed from 6.9 weeks in September 2011 to 11.9 weeks as of April this year.
The most direct cause is Brexit's dismal return on investment. Leave campaigners had promised to redirect EU membership savings into the NHS. Instead, Brexit slashed Britain's revenues. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit has permanently reduced UK productivity by 4%, with the overall economic cost shrinking the economy by between 4% and 8%.
The financial damage and fiscal pressure from Brexit far outstripped any savings on EU contributions. Meanwhile, inflation and an aging population have continued to push NHS running costs ever higher. Beyond empty promises, the Conservatives proved utterly incapable of addressing the NHS crisis.
The healthcare debacle, however, is only a small part of Britain's political comedy. The bigger punchline is "Brexit will drive out migrants."
Johnson pledged to bring net migration down to 100,000 a year after leaving the EU. Reality delivered the exact opposite. According to the Office for National Statistics, net migration in the year of Brexit stood at 252,000. During Johnson's three years as Prime Minister, the figure surged dramatically — peaking at 891,000 in 2022, a wave widely dubbed the "Johnson surge." Only after Labour took office did net migration begin to ease, falling to 171,000 last year.
Johnson's immigration record is steeped in irony. The core Brexit promise was to "take back control of our borders" — primarily by curbing immigration — a rallying cry that resonated with voters in England's old industrial heartlands in the north. Brexit did succeed in severing the free movement of EU nationals into the UK. Data from 2025 shows that net migration from Europe has actually turned negative, at minus 70,000 — meaning more Europeans are leaving Britain than arriving.
Plot twist: a massive influx of non-EU migrants filled that gap: care worker visas shot up from 22,000 to 101,000, and international student and academic visas poured in alongside them.
Brexit drove out the Polish lorry drivers and French chefs. First came a wave of Hong Kong BNO holders driving Ubers, then far larger numbers of refugees, workers, and students from South Asia and Africa. By year-end last year, under Labour's aggressive intervention, net migration had finally retreated to 171,000 — close to pre-referendum levels.
Oxford University's Migration Observatory, nonetheless, put it sharply in its ten-year retrospective: while the numbers may have returned to pre-Brexit levels, the composition is entirely different.
Why did Johnson's promise of Brexit reducing migration produce the exact opposite result? Brexit dramatically reduced the supply of working-class labor from EU countries, leaving the government little choice but to admit more refugees and new migrants to fill low-wage roles. Brexit also drove large numbers of high-net-worth Europeans out of the UK.
Johnson then exploited Hong Kong's social unrest in 2019 to attract Hong Kong people — along with their assets — to migrate to Britain, propping up a faltering economy. Johnson was not motivated by compassion. Using new migrants, Johnson merely robbed Peter to pay Paul , to plug the labor and capital shortfalls that Brexit itself had caused.
This is how British policy operates. The system elects a performer like Johnson — a man who perfects the art of disheveled hair and studied eccentricity. It lets him champion a catastrophic Brexit referendum. It watches him quietly abandon every campaign promise he made. Then it stands by as he imports waves of migrants as damage control. He went on to interfere in Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations, prolonging the war. Ordinary Britons footed the bill for soaring energy prices.
And what became of this former Prime Minister? Globetrotting for paychecks — traveling all the way to Mumbai, India, to attend the lavish wedding of the younger son of Mukesh Ambani, India's wealthiest man. Collecting appearance fees and continued to rake in easy money.
Johnson faces zero consequences for the ruinous decisions he made while in power. That, apparently, is British democracy.
Some commentators say Britain has been asleep for ten years. The reality is far worse: Britain has gone bonkers for ten years, and will continue to be mad for years to come. The British system churns through accountability and prime ministers in equal measure, yet the issues people care most about only get worse. The process looks right, but it never produces the right results.
Friends who have emigrated to Britain truly need to take heed. Raising the next generation under this kind of system offers no promising future in sight.
Lo Wing-hung
